This is a draft of the introduction page. Numbers are for commenting and collaboration purposes and will be removed in a final version.

Introduction

1 Welcome reader, to the 21st Century Edition of Earth Not a Globe. This is a living document based on the seminal teachings of the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, an inquiry into the shape of the world written over 150 years ago. We invite you to join us on a free thinking adventure into the shape of the earth, the foundations of science, and the philosophy of truth.

2 We are the Flat Earth Society, a community of intellectuals who believe that the earth is flat. The earth is not a globe of popular credulity, but a vast plane of unknown extent. The earth is flat for many reasons and much evidence points towards this flatness. This book will explore the evidence, address the opposition, and discuss ramifications hereto.

3 Built on Ancient Greek theories, bankrolled by the misinformed and corrupt, the globular dogma has brainwashed nearly every man, woman and child on earth. The idea that the earth is round is accepted without question or hesitation, as if they were words from a higher power. The necessity of things like peer review are hardly considered. Even more troubling, it goes further than blind acceptance. Our society teaches that to question is to be ignorant. If you question a supposed truth, you are mocked. We live a world where “skeptics” of any subject are painted with disdain, where the President of the United States feels the need to insult the Flat Earth Society on national television for questioning the status quo.

4 The Flat Earth Society is a bastion of disobedience, a shining buoy of rebellion on a dark sea of compliance, a declaration that we must not blindly accept a truth without compelling evidence. We are skeptics, and rightly so. The role of the skeptic is to examine both the claims and the evidence, to expose any internal or external inconsistencies, and to prefer those conclusions that are more consistent with real-world facts than competing claims, rejecting any that are manifestly inconsistent with themselves and with the truth.

5 To accept blindly is to live in ignorance. To question the world around you is to be free. So we seek to question -- to endlessly question and question again -- to unravel the mysteries of reality for ourselves, allowing truth to be our compass and to follow it wherever it leads us.

6 The idea of a round earth is much more than just a shape. It is the cornerstone of western science, of our perception of the universe and of our own humanity. As we will demonstrate, a blow against the shape of the earth is a blow against everything, with far reaching consequences from the nature of the universe, down to the scientific method itself. The stakes are high and the reader is encouraged to weigh the subject matter with care.

Added numbers to the paragraphs for easier discussion and collaboration. Numbers will be removed in a final version.

Changed "Sinisterly" to "Even more troubling" on 3.

Added the following to 4: "We are skeptics, and rightly so. The role of the skeptic is to examine both the claims and the evidence, to expose any internal or external inconsistencies, and to prefer those conclusions that are more consistent with real-world facts than competing claims, rejecting any that are manifestly inconsistent with themselves and with the truth."

I believe it's proper to put book titles in "quotes." And it's American-proper to put all periods inside quotes even if it's not logical. But that's about as adhered to as starting a sentence with a conjunction.

I think that "The idea that the earth is round is accepted without without question, without hesitation, as if they were words of a higher power above. " May sound better as "The idea that the earth is round is accepted without question or hesitation, as if they were words from a higher power."

"The Flat Earth Society is a bastion of disobedience, a shining buoy on a sea of conformity, a declaration that we must not blindly accept a truth without compelling evidence." The shining buoy of conformity sounds to me like it's some sort of paragon for conformity, not something that's in contrast to it as the context suggests.

"We seek to question -- to endlessly question and question again -- to unraveling the mysteries of reality for ourselves, allowing truth to be our compass and to follow it wherever it leads us."

I believe it's proper to put book titles in "quotes." And it's American-proper to put all periods inside quotes even if it's not logical. But that's about as adhered to as starting a sentence with a conjunction.

I think that "The idea that the earth is round is accepted without without question, without hesitation, as if they were words of a higher power above. " May sound better as "The idea that the earth is round is accepted without question or hesitation, as if they were words from a higher power."

"The Flat Earth Society is a bastion of disobedience, a shining buoy on a sea of conformity, a declaration that we must not blindly accept a truth without compelling evidence." The shining buoy of conformity sounds to me like it's some sort of paragon for conformity, not something that's in contrast to it as the context suggests.

"We seek to question -- to endlessly question and question again -- to unraveling the mysteries of reality for ourselves, allowing truth to be our compass and to follow it wherever it leads us."

I have other notes, but they are nitpicking.

Thank you. I adopted your recommendations.

I changed the sea analogy to "The Flat Earth Society is a bastion of disobedience, a shining buoy of rebellion on a dark sea of compliance, a declaration that we must not blindly accept a truth without compelling evidence." for better understanding.

Poseidon

Using the period IN the quotes v. OUT of the quotes is not a matter of dialect. Rather, it is a matter of context. If the quotes are used to indicate that a person is speaking, then the period is placed IN the quotation mark. If, on the other hand, the quotes are used for another purpose, then the period is placed OUTSIDE the quotation mark. Witness the following examples: He said, "she is ugly." And then the next example: The Democrats are nowhere near Pelosi's claim of "being capitalist". Note that the 2nd example is not an exact quote of hers, but simply a statement of the broad content of her message. Hope this helps.

Poseidon

To be perfectly honest, its simply what I learned in the process of getting my degree in History. I DO have a degree in Philosophy, and I AM aware that different disciplines do vary in their styles. History and Philosophy vary in the way in which one cites "footnotes", for example. In History, one literally uses footnotes, or if absolutely necessary, endnotes, although this latter is discouraged. In Philosophy, one uses parenthetical notation. As far as citing titles of books, AFAIK, both disciplines underline them.

I don't think you will get your head ripped off for using italics, but in my experience, they are more commonly used for things like the proper names of ships and the like. Simply my input, based on my own academic experience. Just trying to help.

To be perfectly honest, its simply what I learned in the process of getting my degree in History. I DO have a degree in Philosophy, and I AM aware that different disciplines do vary in their styles. History and Philosophy vary in the way in which one cites "footnotes", for example. In History, one literally uses footnotes, or if absolutely necessary, endnotes, although this latter is discouraged. In Philosophy, one uses parenthetical notation. As far as citing titles of books, AFAIK, both disciplines underline them.

I don't think you will get your head ripped off for using italics, but in my experience, they are more commonly used for things like the proper names of ships and the like. Simply my input, based on my own academic experience. Just trying to help.

Don't mean to undermine your expertise, it's just that I googled "underline book titles" and got back a bunch of results talking about how the proper thing to do is to put book titles in italics.

Poseidon

Hey, no offence taken. It is entirely possible that things have changed since I graduated 21 years ago from undergrad, and a bit later from grad. Things DO change frequently in academia, and in education generally. Just ask my wife, who teaches Grade School!

Poseidon

Quick question: I just picked up a book on my Kindle device by Alex Gleason called "Is the Bible from Heaven? Is the Earth a Globe?" It was written in 1890 and revised in 1893. Anybody here know anything about this book?

Quick question: I just picked up a book on my Kindle device by Alex Gleason called "Is the Bible from Heaven? Is the Earth a Globe?" It was written in 1890 and revised in 1893. Anybody here know anything about this book?